SF is using a day 2 pick at Qb, as are many other teams. Houston picked up Shaub for peanuts, he looked washed up before then. Alex Smith was successful at SF before looking like a dud in prior years. Manning, Flacco, and Romo are nothing special.

You can argue salary all you want... I don't advocate allowing even a mediocre Qb to leave your team once they know the system. You've picked your pony and you're stuck with him. It takes Qbs 2-3 years to learn a system, the player, and to get good at that system regardless. Deciding to switch up Qbs, unless you're a run heavy team, is blatantly admitting that you're going through a rebuilding process that's going to take some time. Most teams can't or at least don't want to afford that, and I don't blame them. But to say that these GMs feel like you "have to have" a top 10 Qb to win is ridiculous. If they did then Flacco, Manning, Romo, etc. wouldn't get their contracts, they would get dumped for the next potential Andrew Luck.

sHUAB GOT AN EXTENTION OF 4 YEARS...60+ MILLION...NOT EXACTLY PEANUTS FOR A GUY WHO HAS BEEN HEALTHY FOR WHAT...2 FULL SEASON HIS ENTIRE CAREER. NICE TRY THOUGH (stupid cap loc...sorry)

Flacco got paid too. And you can say Minny doesnt care, but then why did they pay Capt Weiner Pic (or Grey Bush, if you prefer that name)so much to come back and play for them. Seattle paid HAsselbeck for how long before he got old and they went hunting for a new qb (and overpaid a broken QB that Minny ditched to get The Undecided One in the process...T. Jackson...remember him? )

So you have SF as your ONLY example...and they truely dont care much because they have one of the best defenses in the game and a damn fine running back by commitee system.

so you have a lot of theories about why you are right, but the practing NFL says you are wrong...with 1 exception.

Matt Shaub was traded for 2 2nd round picks along with a swap of first round picks. He was considered a high level prospect the entire time he was in Atlanta and they only moved him because he was playing behind Michael Vick who was redefining the QB position at the time(though ATL was still losing). The Texans traded for him for the sole purpose of making him their starting QB. Shaub was never considered washed up only unproven since he got very little playing time in ATL.

SF has a QB as a head coach and even with one of the best defenses in the league they still rolled the dice on a 2nd year unproven QB because they felt Alex Smith(playing incredibly well at the time of his injury) couldn't take them to a Super Bowl win with his torpid play.

The Vikings wanted a QB so bad they overdrafted Ponder with the 12th pick overall. Now they are spending tons of resources to help him because he isn't as good as they thought and they know they can't make a playoff run with AP alone.

Just because the Seattle Seahawks were able to hit on a 3rd round QB doesnt mean they dont think the position is incredibly important. They signed the top QB prospect available in FA with Matt Flynn, signed Tavaris Jackson to try to create competition, and haven't had a shot at any of the high level prospects in the draft.

Baltimore is building their entire team around Flacco now that their defense has finally aged out and paid him huge money because they didn't think they could replace him.

June 21st, 2013, 2:11 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

Yeah, you're completely off base on Schaub. At the time, it was a pretty big trade for an unproven commodity. Similar to how the Eagles traded away Kolb for DRC and a 2nd round pick.

If Seattle didn't think QB wasn't important, they wouldn't have paid a bunch of money to one-game-wonder Matt Flynn.

If the Ravens didn't think QB wasn't important, they wouldn't have given Flacco so much money. And it had nothing to do with system and/or SB. The Ravens let Trent Dilfer walk after winning a SB, and Ozzie Newsome was working for their front office back then to.

There are so many examples of teams doing dumb things just to roll the dice on a guy that might be a solid QB. Oakland, Minny, Jacksonville -- the list goes on and on.

June 21st, 2013, 2:26 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2347

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

rao wrote:

SF has a QB as a head coach and even with one of the best defenses in the league they still rolled the dice on a 2nd year unproven QB because they felt Alex Smith(playing incredibly well at the time of his injury) couldn't take them to a Super Bowl win with his torpid play.

Even beyond that, they didnt take the QB to supplant Smith that year or even the next. They took him as developmental, injury forced him into playing and he added a new dimension so they kept in the Hot Hand. It wa sa fluke, not an intention to have a 2nd rd Qb starting in the SB for them the same year he was drafted.

SF has a QB as a head coach and even with one of the best defenses in the league they still rolled the dice on a 2nd year unproven QB because they felt Alex Smith(playing incredibly well at the time of his injury) couldn't take them to a Super Bowl win with his torpid play.

Even beyond that, they didnt take the QB to supplant Smith that year or even the next. They took him as developmental, injury forced him into playing and he added a new dimension so they kept in the Hot Hand. It wa sa fluke, not an intention to have a 2nd rd Qb starting in the SB for them the same year he was drafted.

Kaep actually didn't play till his second year. The 9ers drafted him to develop a QB behind Smith in 2011. He was the 4th pick in the 2nd round which I wouldn't consider insignificant by any means and since the 9ers couldn't get Cam Newton they waited to get the best possible talent at QB they could with their next pick. None of the other QBs in 2011 were worth trading up for or drafting over Aldon Smith.

June 21st, 2013, 4:53 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2347

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

TY for the correction. Point is still valid though, Kaep wasnt drafted to be the starter so soon, but kicked butt when he filled in so the coach decided to roll with him. Its not because good/great QB prospects are cheap and easy to find.

June 24th, 2013, 11:46 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

regularjoe12 wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

WJB has the philosophy that the QB doesn't matter all that much. He's been pretty consistent in this, I (and all other 32 GMs in the NFL) just happen to think he's wrong. This is a QB-driven league.

Stafford might not be a definitive top 10 QB, but he's definitely in the conversation, and given his age, you still have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

SF is using a day 2 pick at Qb, as are many other teams. Houston picked up Shaub for peanuts, he looked washed up before then. Alex Smith was successful at SF before looking like a dud in prior years. Manning, Flacco, and Romo are nothing special.

You can argue salary all you want... I don't advocate allowing even a mediocre Qb to leave your team once they know the system. You've picked your pony and you're stuck with him. It takes Qbs 2-3 years to learn a system, the player, and to get good at that system regardless. Deciding to switch up Qbs, unless you're a run heavy team, is blatantly admitting that you're going through a rebuilding process that's going to take some time. Most teams can't or at least don't want to afford that, and I don't blame them. But to say that these GMs feel like you "have to have" a top 10 Qb to win is ridiculous. If they did then Flacco, Manning, Romo, etc. wouldn't get their contracts, they would get dumped for the next potential Andrew Luck.

sHUAB GOT AN EXTENTION OF 4 YEARS...60+ MILLION...NOT EXACTLY PEANUTS FOR A GUY WHO HAS BEEN HEALTHY FOR WHAT...2 FULL SEASON HIS ENTIRE CAREER. NICE TRY THOUGH (stupid cap loc...sorry)

Flacco got paid too. And you can say Minny doesnt care, but then why did they pay Capt Weiner Pic (or Grey Bush, if you prefer that name)so much to come back and play for them. Seattle paid HAsselbeck for how long before he got old and they went hunting for a new qb (and overpaid a broken QB that Minny ditched to get The Undecided One in the process...T. Jackson...remember him? )

So you have SF as your ONLY example...and they truely dont care much because they have one of the best defenses in the game and a damn fine running back by commitee system.

so you have a lot of theories about why you are right, but the practing NFL says you are wrong...with 1 exception.

RJ... Getting paid has nothing to do with a teams "strategy"... I already covered that. Why can't you guys understand basic logic? And why do you always go back to already proven points?

I've already stated that it is important to pay a Qb that knows your system, and I already stated why that's important.

Wonna try again?

June 24th, 2013, 11:54 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

Blueskies wrote:

Yeah, you're completely off base on Schaub. At the time, it was a pretty big trade for an unproven commodity. Similar to how the Eagles traded away Kolb for DRC and a 2nd round pick.

If Seattle didn't think QB wasn't important, they wouldn't have paid a bunch of money to one-game-wonder Matt Flynn.

If the Ravens didn't think QB wasn't important, they wouldn't have given Flacco so much money. And it had nothing to do with system and/or SB. The Ravens let Trent Dilfer walk after winning a SB, and Ozzie Newsome was working for their front office back then to.

There are so many examples of teams doing dumb things just to roll the dice on a guy that might be a solid QB. Oakland, Minny, Jacksonville -- the list goes on and on.

Two seconds and a swap of firsts isn't that huge of a deal. I'd say that's putting in a mediocre effort for a franchise Qb. Teams have given up two firsts like they're nothing in the past. Texas wasn't willing to do that. Two seconds is like a lower first round pick, big deal... That's the same importance as any DE, LT, CB, etc.

There are great examples of crappy teams doing stupid things at every position, that's why they're crappy teams. Good teams don't break the bank to get a Qb and that's my point.

June 24th, 2013, 11:56 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4006Location: Davison Mi

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

wjb21ndtown wrote:

regularjoe12 wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

WJB has the philosophy that the QB doesn't matter all that much. He's been pretty consistent in this, I (and all other 32 GMs in the NFL) just happen to think he's wrong. This is a QB-driven league.

Stafford might not be a definitive top 10 QB, but he's definitely in the conversation, and given his age, you still have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

SF is using a day 2 pick at Qb, as are many other teams. Houston picked up Shaub for peanuts, he looked washed up before then. Alex Smith was successful at SF before looking like a dud in prior years. Manning, Flacco, and Romo are nothing special.

You can argue salary all you want... I don't advocate allowing even a mediocre Qb to leave your team once they know the system. You've picked your pony and you're stuck with him. It takes Qbs 2-3 years to learn a system, the player, and to get good at that system regardless. Deciding to switch up Qbs, unless you're a run heavy team, is blatantly admitting that you're going through a rebuilding process that's going to take some time. Most teams can't or at least don't want to afford that, and I don't blame them. But to say that these GMs feel like you "have to have" a top 10 Qb to win is ridiculous. If they did then Flacco, Manning, Romo, etc. wouldn't get their contracts, they would get dumped for the next potential Andrew Luck.

sHUAB GOT AN EXTENTION OF 4 YEARS...60+ MILLION...NOT EXACTLY PEANUTS FOR A GUY WHO HAS BEEN HEALTHY FOR WHAT...2 FULL SEASON HIS ENTIRE CAREER. NICE TRY THOUGH (stupid cap loc...sorry)

Flacco got paid too. And you can say Minny doesnt care, but then why did they pay Capt Weiner Pic (or Grey Bush, if you prefer that name)so much to come back and play for them. Seattle paid HAsselbeck for how long before he got old and they went hunting for a new qb (and overpaid a broken QB that Minny ditched to get The Undecided One in the process...T. Jackson...remember him? )

So you have SF as your ONLY example...and they truely dont care much because they have one of the best defenses in the game and a damn fine running back by commitee system.

so you have a lot of theories about why you are right, but the practing NFL says you are wrong...with 1 exception.

RJ... Getting paid has nothing to do with a teams "strategy"... I already covered that. Why can't you guys understand basic logic? And why do you always go back to already proven points?

I've already stated that it is important to pay a Qb that knows your system, and I already stated why that's important.

Wonna try again?

wait..you used 5 examples to support your argument and I debunked 4 of them...and yet somehow I'm in the wrong here???perhaps you should do a better job of explaining your stance if others are having trouble "understanding YOUR basic logic"

your tried to claim that 5 other teams didnt value the QB spot sighting "paying them peanuts" as an example. explain to me how correcting you was not understanding basic logic here. now if you meant somthing else...perhaps you should be clearer.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

June 24th, 2013, 3:08 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

regularjoe12 wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

regularjoe12 wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

WJB has the philosophy that the QB doesn't matter all that much. He's been pretty consistent in this, I (and all other 32 GMs in the NFL) just happen to think he's wrong. This is a QB-driven league.

Stafford might not be a definitive top 10 QB, but he's definitely in the conversation, and given his age, you still have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

SF is using a day 2 pick at Qb, as are many other teams. Houston picked up Shaub for peanuts, he looked washed up before then. Alex Smith was successful at SF before looking like a dud in prior years. Manning, Flacco, and Romo are nothing special.

You can argue salary all you want... I don't advocate allowing even a mediocre Qb to leave your team once they know the system. You've picked your pony and you're stuck with him. It takes Qbs 2-3 years to learn a system, the player, and to get good at that system regardless. Deciding to switch up Qbs, unless you're a run heavy team, is blatantly admitting that you're going through a rebuilding process that's going to take some time. Most teams can't or at least don't want to afford that, and I don't blame them. But to say that these GMs feel like you "have to have" a top 10 Qb to win is ridiculous. If they did then Flacco, Manning, Romo, etc. wouldn't get their contracts, they would get dumped for the next potential Andrew Luck.

sHUAB GOT AN EXTENTION OF 4 YEARS...60+ MILLION...NOT EXACTLY PEANUTS FOR A GUY WHO HAS BEEN HEALTHY FOR WHAT...2 FULL SEASON HIS ENTIRE CAREER. NICE TRY THOUGH (stupid cap loc...sorry)

Flacco got paid too. And you can say Minny doesnt care, but then why did they pay Capt Weiner Pic (or Grey Bush, if you prefer that name)so much to come back and play for them. Seattle paid HAsselbeck for how long before he got old and they went hunting for a new qb (and overpaid a broken QB that Minny ditched to get The Undecided One in the process...T. Jackson...remember him? )

So you have SF as your ONLY example...and they truely dont care much because they have one of the best defenses in the game and a damn fine running back by commitee system.

so you have a lot of theories about why you are right, but the practing NFL says you are wrong...with 1 exception.

RJ... Getting paid has nothing to do with a teams "strategy"... I already covered that. Why can't you guys understand basic logic? And why do you always go back to already proven points?

I've already stated that it is important to pay a Qb that knows your system, and I already stated why that's important.

Wonna try again?

wait..you used 5 examples to support your argument and I debunked 4 of them...and yet somehow I'm in the wrong here???perhaps you should do a better job of explaining your stance if others are having trouble "understanding YOUR basic logic"

your tried to claim that 5 other teams didnt value the QB spot sighting "paying them peanuts" as an example. explain to me how correcting you was not understanding basic logic here. now if you meant somthing else...perhaps you should be clearer.

You didn't debunk any of them... That's the problem.

You simply spouted off about players getting paid... I already addressed that.

June 24th, 2013, 3:19 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4006Location: Davison Mi

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

ok would you rather I spout off about how many people went to the Flip Flop Kings house to recruit him (coaches players, ect), or doesnt that not count as trying to get a top 10 QB?

How bout drafting a guy 18 overall? or does that not count either?

You've already tried to say tading away 3 day one draft picks doesnt count as trying to get a top 10 QB.

Apearantly history doesnt count due to the fact that Seattle TRADED to get hasselback to try and get thier top 10 qb OR if you want to be more modern, how about the grab for the one game wonder in Flynn? lemmie guess..that doesnt count right?

I have no idea what the hell point you are trying to make anymore, cuz you keep saying we dont understand ....when it really looks like you dont!

Once again...IF I UNDERSTAND your original point... you said that teams dont try to get that top 10 qb to get to the championship...and i stand by what I said. you have 1 example that works in your "model"...we have 31...

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

June 24th, 2013, 3:41 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

WJB twists every example to fit his point.

Please. Just give me one example of another player (equally as unproven) fetching what Schaub commanded.

Matt Schaub threw for a whole 161 times in his 3 years with ATL. Completed 84 and had 6 TDs with 6 INTs. He was a late 3rd round pick buried behind Michael Vick with only Vick's injuries getting him play time. 2 2nd round picks and the 2 spot jump to number 8 overall in the 1st round was a lot of stuff to give up. Matt Schaub is a perfect example of a team thinking a QB is so important they will give up anything just for a chance at a franchise QB.

June 24th, 2013, 6:12 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12312

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

FWIW...

Freep wrote:

Detroit Lions' Dominic Raiola: Matthew Stafford a good QB as I predicted2:55 PM, June 22, 2013

Four years ago, center Dominic Raiola said — rather pointedly to a handful of heckling fans — that Matthew Stafford was the real deal, that he wouldn’t be like the rest, just another failed Detroit Lionsquarterback.

As Stafford enters his fifth season, Raiola believes his words have come to fruition and that the young quarterback has grown into “the guy” he predicted he would become.

“Just the voice,” Raiola said. “He’s more of that voice out there. He’s the guy. When he’s talking, everybody’s listening. You can tell everybody looks up to him now. And that’s kind of the role I envisioned him taking over when we drafted him five years ago.”

When Stafford isn’t talking, he’s doing, and doing it better and faster than everyone, Raiola said.

“He’s first at everything,” he said. “Just everything he does, if you watch him, he just carries himself that way.”

Receiver Kris Durham, who played with Stafford at Georgia, sees a marked difference in Stafford since their college days.

“Now he’s more taken on a vocal aspect,” Durham said. “Him and Nate (Burleson) and Dom and people like that really kind of do the vocal leading. But it’s a complete 180. You can just see him coming into his own and the confidence he brings around him. It’s a big difference.”

Stafford has come under fire for following his 2011 sterling season with a tarnished 2012 that included statistical drop-offs and lots of losses. But Raiola said Stafford has handled it well, possibly using it as motivation.

“I think he’s taken more of a leadership role,” Raiola said. “I think he’s stronger and in better shape this year. I think he’s got more of a chip on his shoulder, more of something to prove. He’s more comfortable. This is more his team.”

IMO Stafford will be just fine. Extend, resign, whatever just keep him in Detroit.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

June 25th, 2013, 10:18 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Lions working on Stafford deal, but have a deadline

Give it up guys...wjb will NEVER change his mind, even with all of the solid arguments you've given him. He refuses to acknowledge when he's wrong. And he's dead wrong on this one. Why? Because teams don't pay big money to players they don't think are important to the team. EVERY SINGLE NFL TEAM VALUES THE QB POSITION ABOVE ALL OTHERS ON THE FIELD. That statement is as obvious as they come. No different than an NHL team values their goalie, and a MLB team values their pitching ace. They are typically the highest paid positions in their respective sports for a reason.

But wjb will never admit he is wrong...so just let it go.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.